Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law sustained conviction where debt, default, and signature similarity were proved.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored because the loan transaction and default in repayment were undisputed, and the cheque signature was found similar to signatures on the hire purchase agreement and vehicle registration records. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant, as the cheque was treated as issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The appellate court erred in holding that the signature on the cheque had not been proved, and the evidence was held sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be restored on the basis of the admitted transaction, the similarity of signatures on the cheque and connected documents, and the statutory presumption under Section 139.

Analysis: The loan transaction and default in repayment were not disputed. The cheque signature was found to bear similarity with the signatures in the hire purchase agreement and vehicle registration records, and the failure of the forensic examination was attributable to the accused not producing further documents. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt was available to the complainant, and the appellate court erred in holding that the signature on the cheque had not been proved. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt under Section 138.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was restored and the accused was held guilty.

---